Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, whether a sign regulation containing an exception for on-premises signs violates the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert; whether criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment and due process rights entitle them to obtain witnesses’ privileged treatment records from private doctors, psychotherapists or counselors; and whether the government is required to show a substantial connection between money it has seized and an intended violation of the Controlled Substances Act in order to obtain civil asset forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

Bright v. Thomas
19-1201
Issue: Whether a sign regulation containing an exception for on-premises signs, for which both commercial and noncommercial speech may qualify, violates the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab
19-1212
Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.

Friend v. Indiana
19-1214
Issue: Whether, and under what circumstances, criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment and due process rights entitle them to obtain witnesses’ privileged treatment records from private doctors, psychotherapists or counselors.

Szonyi v. Barr
19-1220
Issues: (1) Whether National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services requires deference to an agency standard a court has already deemed to be an impermissible reading of the statutory text; and (2) whether a rule promulgated through adjudication by an agency exercising its Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council step two and Brand X powers can have retroactive effect.

Duckworth v. United States
19-1222
Issue: Whether the government is required to show a substantial connection between money it has seized and an intended violation of the Controlled Substances Act in order to obtain civil asset forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).